This morning I got the new product recommendation email from Police Magazine. Usually this email is an advertising for any of the normal police product manufactures. Today I was taken back because it was for an e-cigarette device.
I understand that magazines need to sell ad space. They also need to send out email newsletters that are paid advertisements. But I would think that a publication that has a stated mission of “providing law enforcement officers of all ranks with information that will help them do their jobs more efficiently, professionally, and most importantly — SAFELY”, would shy away from a recommendation of a tobacco product.
In May of 2014 they did a cover story on law enforcement heart attack prevention. The current issue has an article about stress reduction. Both articles talk about cutting unhealthy lifestyle habits.
How can you preach about wanting to keep police safe and asking them to make lifestyle changes then recommend they buy a product with questionable safety?
Yes I know some of you are saying the e-cigarettes are safer than normal ones. Before writing this I took some time to research and find out about the safety of these vapeing products. All the real medical sources say “There has not been enough peer reviewed research to know the effects of vapeing versus smoking.” The authors did however state that cancer and illness causing chemicals were still present in the vapors.
We have a policy at my Police Department not allowing any tobacco use on duty. The policy was even updated when e-cigarettes became popular to include them as being banned. I know other police agencies and even fire departments with the same policy. The device in the ad, was described as being developed for use on duty.
I am not going to go so far as to say hypocrisy but asking people to make healthy choices then recommending they buy an unhealthy product degrades the importance I place in the message you are trying to deliver.